New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

[Skyclad1uhm1]

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html?1359040877

And geez, it's another Republican! Who could have guessed!
Aren't there special institutions for extreme mental cases like this?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This is just... Jesus I can't even express the level of disgust that brings.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Thank you NM for taking some of the heat off AZ for a change.

 

[D1gger]

Wow! The stupidity of politicians never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Idiot politician acting like an idiot.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well that's just blindingly stupid.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yeah, that's stupid.

Dare we find anyone who thinks otherwise?

 

[ichy]

Mind blowingly stupid. Fortunately it will never pass and it if does it will be struck down by a court in approximately 30 seconds.

 

[ichy]

Yeah, that's stupid.

Dare we find anyone who thinks otherwise?

I'm sure we'll find at least one asshole to defend this.

 

[sandorski]

Fucking disgusting.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

And before this thread takes the obvious turn it should be said this isn't a "Republican" thing. This is just stupidity in action.

 

[sactoking]

Call me crazy, but I don't think it's as bad as it looks on first sight. The description quoted indicates that any prosecution would require showing intent, which is a high bar, and specifically that the intent was to destroy evidence, as opposed to the intent being inability to care for the child.

I'm not saying that this doesn't have the potential to be abhorrently bad, all I'm saying is that on second reading it isn't potentially as bad as it might look.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Call me crazy, but I don't think it's as bad as it looks on first sight. The description quoted indicates that any prosecution would require showing intent, which is a high bar, and specifically that the intent was to destroy evidence, as opposed to the intent being inability to care for the child.

I'm not saying that this doesn't have the potential to be abhorrently bad, all I'm saying is that on second reading it isn't potentially as bad as it might look.

It doesn't destroy evidence though. DNA can still be extracted. Its already done all the time. There is no reason to force a victim this abhorrent violation as suggested.

 

[sactoking]

Very true.

 

[Doppel]

I've actually come to think that being against abortion except for rape is idiotic, but this is illogical and not necessary to prove anything.

 

[OrByte]

wow. That's dumb.

 

[Pantoot]

It doesn't destroy evidence though. DNA can still be extracted. Its already done all the time. There is no reason to force a victim this abhorrent violation as suggested.

The only reasonable explanation that I can stretch to fit over this is that she is attempting to cover cases where the abortion had already been done in order to conceal the evidence. In this case, the victim is trying to cover for the assailant in order to conceal the crime. (or the assailant is forcing the victim to get an abortion to conceal the crime, in which case they are guilty of a crime for that.)

In other words, she is saying, don't think that by running off and getting an abortion and disposing of the evidence that you are going to cover someone else's crime, cause now that's a felony.

But, I haven't really read the bill, its just a poor attempt to make sense of what sounds like a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[DaveSimmons]

And before this thread takes the obvious turn it should be said this isn't a "Republican" thing. This is just stupidity in action.

Agreed that this isn't "R" stupidity, it's "cretinous moron who should never have been elected" stupidity.

Remember this the next time some random "D" idiot offers up some equally brain-dead law for discussion.

All parties have their idiots, and one of them demonstrating their idiocy doesn't "prove" their party is that bad as a whole. For that you have to look at the party platforms, litmus tests, and group actions.

 

[Wreckem]

This bill was yanked it was "allegedly unclear".

A new bill is supposed to be filed. The author supposedly meant to say that a rapist procurring an abortion(convicing their victim to get an abortion) would be guilty of evidence tampering.

I think she was caught pushing something stupid and is using the above story as cover.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The only reasonable explanation that I can stretch to fit over this is that she is attempting to cover cases where the abortion had already been done in order to conceal the evidence.

In other words, she is saying, don't think that by running off and getting an abortion and disposing of the evidence that you are going to cover someone else's crime, cause now that's a felony.

But, I haven't really read the bill, its just a poor attempt to make sense of what sounds like a terrible, terrible idea.

That would raise a new question. Would a rape victim be forbidden from taking a morning after pill in the event they might get pregnant in order to ensure any possible evidence is available? This whole thing makes me shudder as a father with a daughter.

 

[Pantoot]

That would raise a new question. Would a rape victim be forbidden from taking a morning after pill in the event they might get pregnant in order to ensure any possible evidence is available? This whole thing makes me shudder as a father with a daughter.

Great point, the actual bill is really short and equally dumb. I hope that the above poster was correct and that it was pulled.

 

[waggy]

This is just... Jesus I can't even express the level of disgust that brings.

agreed.

This bill was yanked it was "allegedly unclear".

A new bill is supposed to be filed. The author supposedly meant to say that a rapist procurring an abortion(convicing their victim to get an abortion) would be guilty of evidence tampering.

I think she was caught pushing something stupid and is using the above story as cover.

oh good. that would make more sense.

 

[gevorg]

dumbfuckistan indeed

 

[HomerJS]

And before this thread takes the obvious turn it should be said this isn't a "Republican" thing. This is just stupidity in action.

Since a Republican introduced it, will Republican leadership denounce it???

 

[Howard]

Holy shit!!